Dissenting Voices

Policies and Procedures for Handling Sexual Misconduct Cases

 

The Dear Colleague Letter encourages educational institutions to continually review the efficacy of their sexual assault policies and procedures. Developing streamlined, consistent, and transparent policies helps reduce the trauma of disciplinary hearings for all parties involved. 

 

While Grinnell has begun to make changes to its procedures for responding to sexual misconduct cases, we believe these procedures can be improved in a number of ways. Specifically, we ask the College to:

• Provide adequate mental health resources at SHACS. Mental health services are a crucial part of victim/survivors’ support network, whether or not they choose to make allegations. The school is legally mandated to provide this support under Title II of the Higher Education Amendments of 1972, and inadequate support is a form of discrimination by the College that limits a survivor’s ability to fully participate in their academic experience while enrolled at the College. Survivors often deal with sustained mental health issues; the school is required to provide mental health support, particularly if the assailant is given educational sanctions and allowed to remain on campus, exposing survivors to continued trauma.

• Hire a permanent Title IX coordinator with appropriate qualifications and relevant experience for the position. These qualifications may include professional degrees in law, women’s and gender studies, social work, and/or relevant experience working with rape survivors. These credentials are sufficient to cover the standard indicated in the 2011 Dear Colleague Letter (p.12). This position should have some level of autonomy from the President’s office, much like that of our neighboring institution: RVAP at the University of Iowa. Indeed, we ask that the college publicize the various resources available in the state, so that students feel they have somewhere to turn outside the college. Public access to legal aide, such as that provided by Iowa CASA is especially needed during the hearing process.

• Designate a clear time frame for the handling of sexual misconduct cases. DCL indicates that Colleges should have a designated time frame for each major stage of the complaint process, and give the complainant and alleged perpetrator periodic updates as to the status of the investigation. The College can more effectively meet this requirement by giving both parties involved an expected timeline of events for the collection of evidence and testimony, the writing of the report, and the date of the hearing during the initial stage of the investigation. If the timeline needs to be adjusted, both parties should be notified as soon as possible to avoid constituting discrimination by the College. Both parties should be encouraged to have comparable representation and advocacy throughout the process.

• Address all conflicts of interest, both real and perceived. For example, the administrator who oversees the complaint process (and handles appeals) is also in charge of security. Thus, we believe that any appeal based on the grounds that security has mishandled an investigation cannot be impartially evaluated. We also identify a conflict of interest with the Interim Title IX Coordinator: her roles on-campus include Vice President for Strategic Planning and Special Assistant to the President. Residence Life Coordinators may also have a conflict of interest in cases involving Student Advisors.

• Clarify what evidence is considered permissible and relevant for inclusion in reports and hearings. Though cases vary, no proceeding should include unnecessary evidence that in any way implies the act of sexual violence was the victim’s fault. Evidence that may perpetuate victim-blaming includes but is not limited to:

 

• Evidence concerning prior relationship of the two parties involved that is not directly and clearly related to the incident being alleged, including discussion of any romantic or sexual history between the two parties that is not directly relevant to the incident being alleged:

• Evidence and questions during the hearing concerning what the complainant was wearing, or the complainant’s sexual history;

• Any communication between the complainant and alleged perpetrator that is not directly related to the incident being alleged.

 

• Provide the educational, emotional, and protective accommodations guaranteed to victims by the Campus SaVE Act. As soon as a student makes an allegation of sexualassault, the College is obligated to provide them with appropriate resources, and takemeasures to ensure their continued emotional and physical safety during the entire investigation process (clarified in question A-5 of the Questions & Answers on Title IX and Sexual Violence document from the Department of Education). Even if the victim does not file a formal complaint, the Campus SaVE Act mandates that the College comply with the victim’s requests for academic and housing accommodations that minimize the hostility of their living and working environment. Victims should be provided with written notification of these rights upon reporting instances of sexual misconduct. These accommodations should be upheld for the duration of time both survivor and assailant remain on campus. Accommodations and sanctions do not expire until graduation of one or the other student involved.

• Prioritize the safety of the complainant (and the campus community at large) by placing students in paid leadership positions on-campus on probation if they are currently under investigation for sexual misconduct. As a reminder, federal law requires that the College “protect the complainant and ensure his or her safety as necessary, taking interim steps before the final outcome of any investigation.” (see the Questions & Answers on Title IX and Sexual Violence document).

• Make it clear and explicit that students going through sexual misconduct cases are well within their legal rights to communicate with their parents, attorney, or other counsel before their hearing. In order to provide the time to communicate with these resources, provide a longer appeal timeline.

• Review their policies for evidence preservation after disciplinary proceedings have concluded. For example, audio records and written transcripts of College Board Hearings must be accessible for the survivor after the case has been resolved, should they want to pursue legal action. The College should not destroy any evidence, whether audio, visual, or written, for at least five years following the case.

• Pursue close collaboration with state and nationwide legal advocacy programs to provide students with the best resources and counseling services possible in sexual misconduct cases. For example, Crisis Intervention Services, the Rape Victims Advocacy Program (RVAP) and the Iowa Coalition Against Sexual Assault (Iowa CASA) both offer grant money for free legal counseling. Victims should be made aware of these resources in
addition to those on campus, such as Grinnell Advocates. Pamphlets for these resources should be provided to students and made readily available on the college website.

• Offer students who have gone through the College Hearing Board process opportunities to provide anonymous feedback about their experiences. For example, the College could create an optional survey about the Hearing Board process, similar to the CampusClimate surveys. This would establish patterns of complaints in sexual misconduct cases that the College could more quickly acknowledge and resolve.

• Respect and acknowledge student requests for information in writing. Students should also be permitted to record their meetings with administrators and Security officers. Communicating with students verbally and shying away from documentable forms of communication should not be an acceptable alternative to Title IX transparency and accountability.

• Provide all members of the College Hearing Board with yearly training consistent with the recommendations made by the “Questions and Answers on Title IX and Sexual Violence” document written by the Office of Civil Rights. To increase transparency, the College should notify all students of these training proceedings, and specify which members of the campus community serve on CHB. This is consistent with the 2013 revisions to the Clery Act. Reed College, for instance, has a page on their website that lists all current members of their Sexual Misconduct Board. All members of the Board should be reviewed annually by the Title IX Office.

• Provide College Hearing Board members and administrators responsible for determining “educational outcomes” for perpetrators of sexual violence with extensive training regarding the aftermath of sexual trauma for victims. This will help establish more reasonable and equitable outcomes that reflect the lasting psychic effects such trauma has on student survivors. Letters of apology, book reports, community service, and/or meetings with the Dean of Students do not reflect the severity of sexual violence, and are upsetting to many survivors and their families. If perpetrators are required to pass select courses, and subsequently fail those courses, they should be immediately suspended. Acts of retaliation by perpetrators found at fault need immediate and severe actions, including expulsion, as this clearly demonstrates the failure of educational measures to have their desired effect and outcome.